Who are we wholly when talented in speaking our own individual languages? And whose words can verify what's said in the testimonials vouched for? These questions seem to always seep into the
pragmatism of my consciousness in a sudden aphoristic condition that my habits of rendition cannot ignore. But the answer to the above posed questions is in accordance with era -- and the ancient
metaphysical dogmatics again and again reveal themselves in chaotic expressions. As Nietzsche said: "Critical tension: extremes make their appearance and become dominant." I find it reasonable to
submit that both Nazi fascism and Stalinist communism are among the shining examples that validate Nietzsche's terse assertion. During the French Revolution, for instance, the focus of Europe, and
thus the world, was on France. But there is no quality to endorse the notion that France is today at the epicenter of the world's attention, because one would feel it to be unreasonable to pluner
the coffers of a depleted bounty. The power at stake is what drives the ambition of rebellion, and so the language will always be explained by the verbiage of its actions and by those of whom are
conversely debating it. But it remains necessary to note that it is invariable that any given vaunting voice will at some point fuck up and spew a slur, turning the components of a finely
constructed sentence into a tongue twister.